Upon investigating both of these websites, there exists one great barrier to effectiveness in both of them. Being a college student who is supposed to thinking critically and examine bias, both of these sites do little to even mask their prejudice. One of the greatest problems with the climate change debates is arriving at a true scientific consensus, a definitive proven conclusion. Is global warming happening or not? As one of the websites conveys, these sorts of absolutes rarely exist in science. There is always debate regardless of the issue, and while some issues seem to have breakthroughs, the whole truth seems to never come to light. Newton laws even break down at high enough speeds after all. Admittedly there does seem to be a vast consensus on the issue on the side of climate change being real and immediate. Yet it seems that somewhere between the unbiased media, certain peoples' interests, and varying projections the impetus for action falls flat.

Likely Friends of Science's existence is both a driver of the this confusion and ennui and a result of it. Perhaps some people want comfort or easy answers. Others may need support for their livelihood, business practices, or policy support. Others may genuinely be seeking all scientific works to come to a conclusion. Still, the point remains that neither one of these sites is going to convince someone who is of the opposite mindset. Certainly this could be more a comment on the stubbornness of the human perception, but the debunking myths approach lacks subtlety taking swats at myths whose argument the FoS actually frame with their own their words and interests in mind. Seemingly, the CFC-ozone issue had more of a incentive to change because of testing results being frightening. Does it then make sense to believe that the climate change issue can be solved by two sides arguing to change each others' minds with contrasting science whose results can vary based on region. To nail down the weather patterns of the whole world is difficult because no one trend is visible in every region nor is the issue sequestered in one region. I did not find either of these sites very illuminating. They throw models up and make claims. They are not going to mystify me with science graphs, though the actual idea of weather and biology is incredibly mystifying. They are only going to confuse and bog down my mind. I admit my own bias leads me to believe that climate change is real and immediate. Perhaps I was never going to like the Friends of Science site. Yet the WWF site was designed in the same childish, argumentative style that serves the interests of no one, merely causes the debate to fester.